Daily Alert Archives

What the Headlines Missed about Amnesty International's Accusation that Israel Commits Genocide

(Los Angeles Times) Jonah Goldberg - Reporting on Amnesty International's new report about Israel's War in Gaza, the New York Times headline read: "Amnesty International Accuses Israel of Genocide in Gaza." The Los Angeles Times was similar: "Amnesty International says Israel is committing genocide in Gaza." Calling the report unfair would be a profound understatement. Here's its first sentence: "On 7 October 2023, Israel embarked on a military offensive on the occupied Gaza Strip." In other words, the story begins not with Hamas's unprecedented terrorist attack on Israeli civilians that day. Rather, it begins with the Israeli response to the aggression of Hamas. This is a bit like reporting on America's "genocide" in Japan by stating, "On April 18, 1942, the United States embarked on a military offensive on the Japanese nation" - leaving out that whole Pearl Harbor thing. The Genocide Convention of 1948 is very clear about what constitutes actual or attempted genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." But the Palestinian population has grown more than eightfold since Israel's founding, according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and the population of Gaza has increased 600% since 1960. One of the most important words in the UN definition of genocide is "intent." If Israel, which even its enemies characterize as supremely competent and lethal, intends genocide, it's really, really, bad at it. Indeed, if genocide were the goal, you would think Israel would stop warning civilians to evacuate areas it's about to attack and sending Palestinians caravans of aid. On page 101 of Amnesty's 296-page report, the authors essentially concede that Israel isn't committing genocide under prevailing interpretations of international law, as they reject "an overly cramped interpretation of international jurisprudence...that would effectively preclude a finding of genocide in the context of an armed conflict." As Commentary's Seth Mandel writes, "So Amnesty International dissents from international law. That's fine. Just be up-front about it: Amnesty is not accusing Israel of 'genocide,' it is accusing Israel of a different crime which Amnesty has named 'genocide,' just so it could use that word." Amnesty didn't want a discussion about the proper definition of genocide. It wanted headlines alleging that Israel committed the crime - and it got them.
2024-12-15 00:00:00
Full Article